Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.11-3

The defendant is charged [in count__] with risk of injury to a minor. The statute defining this

offense makes it illegal for any person to have contact with the intimate parts of a child under the

age of sixteen years or to subject a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate

parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of

such child.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Contact with intimate parts

The first element is that the defendant had contact with the intimate parts of the minor or

subjected the minor to contact with the defendant’s intimate parts. Intimate parts means the

genital area, groin, anus, inner thighs, buttocks or breasts. “Contact” means the touching of

intimate parts. The state must prove either that <insert as appropriate:>

• the defendant had contact with the child’s intimate parts; or

• the defendant subjected the child to contact with the defendant’s intimate parts.

To constitute contact there must be an actual touching. There need not be, however, direct

contact with the unclothed body of the other person or the defendant. It is enough if the touching

of the genital area, groin, anus, inner thighs, buttocks or breast was through the other person’s

clothing or the defendant’s clothing.

There need not be a touching of all the intimate parts. It is sufficient if any one of the intimate

parts is touched.

Element 2 - Of a sexual and indecent manner

The second element is that the contact with the intimate parts took place in a sexual and indecent

manner, as opposed to an innocent touching or an accidental, inadvertent or reflexive touching.

“Sexual” means having to do with sex and “indecent” means offensive to good taste or public

morals.

Element 3 - Likely to impair health or morals

The third element is that the contact, which was sexual and indecent in nature, was likely to

injure or weaken the (health / morals) of the child. <Include appropriate definition(s):>

• The health of the child refers to the child’s well-being.

• As used here, “morals” means living, acting and thinking in accordance with those

principles and standards which are commonly accepted among us as right and decent.

I want to stress that the state does not have to prove that the defendant actually did impair the

(health / morals) of the child. Rather, the state must show that the defendant’s behavior was

likely to have done so. “Likely” means in all probability.4 Thus, the state must show that it was

probable that the sexual and indecent behavior of the defendant would injure or weaken the

child’s (health / morals). There is no requirement that the state prove actual harm to the child’s

(health / morals).

[<Insert if appropriate:>

5 The defendant need not have had the specific intent to impair the

health or morals of the child, only the general intent to perform the sexual and indecent act. <See

Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1.>]

Element 4 - Minor under 16 years of age

The fourth element is that at the time of the incident, the minor was under the age of sixteen

years. This means that the child had not yet had (his / her) sixteenth birthday when the alleged

contact took place.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant had contact

with the intimate parts of the child or subjected the child to contact with the defendant’s intimate

parts, 2) that the contact with the intimate parts took place in a sexual and indecent manner, 3)

the contact was likely to impair the (health / morals) of the child, and 4) that the child was under

sixteen years of age at the time.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of risk of injury to a minor, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other

hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of

the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

1 In State v. Joseph V., 345 Conn. 516, 570-71 (2022), the Supreme Court held that these are not

conceptually distinct elements, but rather, alternative ways of satisfying a single element.

Accordingly, if there is evidence of both types of conduct relating to a single count of the

information, a specific unanimity instruction is not required.

2 See, e.g., State v. Alberto M., 120 Conn. App. 104, 110-11 (2010) (noting that “risk of injury to

a child statute prohibits ‘sexual contact’ as defined in § 53a-65” and that for both sexual assault

in the third degree and risk of injury, “for purposes of determining whether sexual contact

occurred, it is of no consequence in our analysis that the contact occurred through the victim’s

clothing rather than against her bare skin. See In re Mark R., [59 Conn. App. 538, 542 (2000)]

(for purposes of determining whether sexual contact occurred it is irrelevant whether defendant

made contact through clothing or with bare skin); State v. Eric T., [8 Conn. App. 607, 613

(1986)] (same).”).

3 See State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 782-83 (1997) (not improper to instruct jury to apply

community standards).

If the information charges the defendant, in the conjunctive, with both alternatives (i.e.,

impairment of both health and morals) and the court instructs the jury, in the disjunctive, as to

each of those alternatives (i.e., impairment of either health or morals), the court should consider

including a specific unanimity charge, particularly regarding unanimity as to elements. <See

Specific Unanimity, Instruction 2.11-6.>.

4 See State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481, 492 (2004).

5 See State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211, 217 (1986) (instruction need not include principle of

general intent unless evidence suggests that the defendant’s conduct was involuntary).